Apr 4, 2017

To Spew or Not to Spew: Let's Take the Climate Scientists at Their Word

Scientists claim ice cores have revealed rapid, drastic temperature fluctuations in the distant past. (Ice cores, to refresh your memory, are those long tubes of ice drilled up from deep in the Artic tundra, in Greenland and such like places.) Now, I take them at their word. Through natural causes, the climate could suddenly drop sharply, or rise perilously, in the space of a century. Civilization could be devastated! Oh noooooo!

Note that they admit their models can't account for everything, and such erratic changes in Earth's climate are officially possible. Their prediction of a 3 degree rise is just a "best guess," not the only possible eventuality. Suppose there were unexpected volcanic eruptions, strange astronomical events, wildly unheard of sunspot activity, etc., etc.? Their models would be screwed! So, shouldn't we be prepared for THAT, as much as anything?

Yes, that's what I'm saying: We should be prepared to "adjust the Earth's thermostat" either UP OR DOWN, depending on what we confront! And, since the current temperature is ideal (apparently, since everyone is so dripping with anxiety over the possibility of even a 1.5 degree C rise), we should ready ourselves to spew MORE CO2, if need be (to warm things up to "normal," if we enter a mini- Ice Age, and get tired of the newly abundant sno-cone operations.)

OR, if the models UNDERESTIMATE warming --- as scientists admit could be the case --- and we have a drastic 17 degree C RISE in global temps, we should be ready not just to cut CO2 (which has only a long-term impact, not good enough for emergencies), but also ready to spew MORE sulfates and aerosols (since scientists say they have a rapid cooling effect. See: the eruption of Pinatuba during the 90s, which cooled things off real good, conveniently helping to "explain" the error in their models at the time.)

Still from "Adventures of Drunky" cartoon
So, yes, I say, let's take the sci-guys at their word. Drastic climate swings could befall us at any moment, and we humans must learn to play with the Earth's thermostat to balance things out. Why ONLY prepare for the 3 degree rise their models show as most likely? They admit they can't account for unknown factors, or the subtle complexity of climate, with any real certainty. And why ONLY consider cutting emissions as our only poosh option on the climate poosh bar? Some emissions have a COOLING effect (they say), so we should spew MORE of those even if their models are RIGHT. Let's get those chim-chim-chim-a-neys cooking!

But suppose a weird confluence of cosmic rays or some shize-nit like that happens, and COOLS the earth by 33 degrees C, or some other occultic number? Then, I say, we should quickly begin spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, to get things back up to warm and toasty 20th century levels. Ahhh, interglacial period bliss! Ain't she grand...

Yes, why all the obsession with just CUTTING emissions. Emissions can be good or bad, dependin'! If our bad old human emissions are the key temperature regulators, we should be prepared to overcome our natural disdain of sooty skies, and crank it up to 11 if need be! Get those smoke-stacks fired up! I mean, the current plan is so SHORT-SIGHTED. Your own fershlugginer ice cores are sayin' that climate has made rapid, drastic swings in the ancient past --- through NATURAL causes alone. So, let's "model" that.... Stick that in your GCM and release its carbon via burning....

Let's think LONG-TERM! Who KNOWS what could happen --- cold, hot; or maybe hot, hotter, chilly-willy, mm-so-so, shit! boiling again! We gotta be prepared, ba-by! Stand by with the CO2, get those sulfates on tap, and hey, how about a few more billion dollars for some waste of space climate research studies...

No comments:

Post a Comment